Banning <16 year olds from social media is for their protection. Banning >60 from social media (and I’d add voting) is for everyone else’s protection.
Broader swathes which they're part of. This is just the millennia old has and has-nots, don't fall for wishful thinking this base.
Then they get decent paying jobs and vote for the party that gets rid of the programs they no longer qualify for in order to reduce their taxation.
Whoa now. Just because I am childless doesn’t mean I don’t care about future generations. I still have friends and family that do have children and I vote with that in mind.
(Which would be hilarious, as it means, allmost no one voted in office would be allowed to vote themself anymore, unless of course that would change, too)
Please expand on this.
The CEO is not controlling their time, he's buying it and they're selling it.
What other reasons do you have?
So can I
- They want to control people like property - They want to impose their views and values - They don't want any competition - They have a power trip - They want to use others time for their own benefit
What else am I missing?
The people for instance, when everyone is on social media, you won't find people in the streets anymore, except for the homeless and junkies.
(but luckily it is still possible to find people in the real world, but it did became hard to find real undistracted people)
There’s nothing keeping you here in a casino, gambling your wages away.
There’s nothing keeping you here in a bar drinking yourself to oblivion.
There’s nothing keeping you here smoking three packs a day until you’re shitting tar.
The age old advice to “just stop” doesn’t quite work for those most at risk. Harm minimisation is a reasonable thing. We don’t think it’s a good idea for young kids to smoke, drink, drive, vote or have sex. Since we know that social media can be specifically harmful to the youngest demographic, why wouldn’t we want to regulate it based on age?
Who is this "we" that accepts that uncritically? I've been on "social media" since I was 8yo and my little brother has been on social media since he was a baby. Now he's becoming a doctor. He grew up with the 1st gen iPhone which was released 17 years ago.
FWIW I think the drinking age of 21 in the US is kinda silly. Many Americans start driving at 14 (with employment letter) or at 15.5 and many Americans buy their first rifle at 18 years old.
EDITED to remove a stupid phone autocorrection/autoinsertion.
I’m not a social media addict, I only use HN occasionally and really only to remind myself what other people are like. Without this I would forget and assume things about people that are just not true. I treat social media like the dangerous drug that it is and intentionally limit my exposure. But not everyone can do that. I personally know many people who have let social media ruin their lives and their minds to the point I’m not even sure they are rehabilitatable.
I wasn’t proposing a ban, I don’t trust the government with that much power and regulation would be difficult- at what point does a social club become social media. I guess my appeal to time travel did not properly reflect this perceived futility.
I think the only way would be as an Amish like intentional community with a religious level of enforcement. E.g. You can use social media but only in the shed, not in the house. But that’s not realistic so I just have to accept that X% of the population are not going to make it unscathed. These people will become a burden on the state at a time when the state is increasingly reaching to voluntary euthanasia for solutions. Perhaps in time people will socially and genetically evolve in ways that’ll be able to deal with it.